Talk:University of Buckingham/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

The student body is very diverse, about 40-45% home, 55-66% overseas, depending on faculty (Europe, Far East, America, Africa, Middle-East, etc.). There are hence various societies, for Bahamas students, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.111.26 (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have a figure for the proportion of UK students at Buckingham? I imagine it is extremely small, or those that are from the UK have special circumstances of some kind. — Trilobite 19:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Buckingham's website as of October, 2005 183 British students were enrolled. That amounts to just over 25 per cent of students at the university. They provide information on nationality, though I haven't seen information on other circumstances (which are probably restricted by the DPA). Nick Kerr 15:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added information on the number of UK students which can be found at [1]. Hope this is useful. Cheers, Nick Kerr 14:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Most UK students are either mature students taking a career break, or (like me) children of expatriates who would have had to pay overseas tuition fees at any other university. (I wish I'd gone to another university, but that's another story!) Many British citizens were also from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, whose governments paid up.

17:18 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The previous contribution is not true: the majority of students are in the 18-20 age range, as you would expect. There is, however, a very significant graduate school in the university, i.e. students taking higher degrees : MAs, MPhil, DPhil. It may be this that has created the confusion.

I believe that about 40% of students are UK nationals. The number is rising because of the UK fees differential, and of course the two year degree, which makes it attractive. I know the UK student survey has made a difference. A friend of mine moved to Bucks from another uni because she never saw any tutors or had any support in the first plaec she was in, and Buckingham was apparently really good in terms of student contact. This is a growing problem in Uk universitys, you pay a fortune these days, and don't get half the attention you had at school, even! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.17.138 (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The number of students here has been going up, as fees' issue creeps in elsewhere. I don't know where the site really gets its student numbers figures, but these are now really about 1,200 and growing. The University has recently bought houses to meet the increased demand for accommodation and is looking to develop the large area of land it bought in 2008 on the other side of the river, to increase its accommodation provision, and its library, teaching, and social facilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.62.137 (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can understand, Buckingham is 'independent' in the way that Yale and Harvard are independent: its income streams are endowment and student fees, not government (taxpayers') money. From an international point of view, this is not problematic. It seems to be UK readers who have trouble with the word 'independent'. Shouldn't the article say somethine like 'independent on the model of Harvard and Yale'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.111.83 (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Rather than just stating that is an independent or private insitution this article makes morally subjective claims about the educational independence as well as financial independence of this body. I believe this does not conform to a NPOV and should be amended. Davidkinnen

Instead of just saying this article is POV why don't you look at things you'd like to correct. I just corrected two things which were POV, but 'morally subjective claims about the educational independence' of the University is a large order to place on it. Could you elaborate, rather than just adding a banner?Nick Kerr 00:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Would be nice to clarify exactly what independence is available to Buckingham which is not available to state-funded UK universities.

As they have no RAE or teaching funding to lose, one might argue that they may feel more able to do things the government of the day might not like. That's a rather subjective freedom, as of course any university can have policies which are out of favour, or allow its staff to do unfavoured things. Is there any evidence of that being more the case at Buckingham? The VC does publish articles criticising government funding in science, and, indeed the role of science (rather than private technological R&D) in human progress, but that seems the extent of the academic freedom?

Presumably they are as highly regulated as other universities, but perhaps not? Do their courses have to meet government standards? (perhaps not, as they say they voluntarily submit to the standards body QAA). but given that they do this, what is it they can do which other universities cannot? The only thing I can think of is to set arbitrarily high fees.

So some statement like "independence, allowing them to {list capabilities available which are unavailable to other universities}" Tim bates 16:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoa non brit coming in here (so presumably a more rounded view):

I can't see the following as an exceptable statement All universities in the UK are formally independent (in the sense that they are self-administered), but because they accept government money in exchange for a significant loss of autonomy, only Buckingham can be called truly independent. The trade-off for this increased autonomy comes in the form of fees, which are (for home and EU students) about 60% higher per year than at most state-funded institutions. 1) not encyclopaedia style writing 2) moral claim 3) no real evidence of claim that the government interferes in public universities 4) no acceptance that private universities independence may be limited by other factors or that there are other factors that secure independence for public universities other than finance. 5) state-funded is in all likeliness incorrect and should be financially supported by the state. 6) a discussion on public v private institutions (schools and universities) should not take place in the article for an individual institution but rather in articles dedicated to that purpose. I am editing the article to remove this statement (sorry left out the signature earlier - ----)

To answer some of these questions, in the UK universities are 'state-funded' as their primary source of income is from teaching and research grants. They maintain autonomy, but only in the sense that they are subject, for instance, to providing specific degree-programmes at certain costs. The Government provides a particular grant for a particular course, if this is below the amount the university can afford, it must cross-subsidise this with either postgraduate students (who pay higher fees) or non-EU students (who pay even higher fees). While it is nice to say it must be proven that universities are limited in some way by government, the reverse could be said. Why does the London School of Economics not accept government money for postgraduate courses? If there is no loss of autonomy/control, then the LSE would have no reason to do so. Similarly, while Buckingham may have been set up on ideological lines, it does maintain independence in very specific areas such as finance (it picks how much money it wants to raise in fees, how much it spends on particular activities, and it can do this independently), it is not subject to government demands for setting 'equality targets' (as it can't have its funding cut), and it does not have to change its course intact to meet fiscal shortfalls due to government policy (that is, it doesn't have to create a lot of cheap courses simply to pay for its more expensive courses). While it may be argued that there exists no 'direct difference' in university structure, it would have to be shown that financial control causes no difference in administration at other universities compared to Buckingham. While I agree that the aforementioned statement should be removed, it could also be changed to mentioned 'private' versus 'state-funded'. All universities in Britain may be 'independent', but technically all schools are 'independent' of central government. The difference is their funding status and its implications. Cheers, Roche-Kerr 11:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak as an expert, but I suspect that the LSE does not accept Govt money (although I must confess I didn't know this was the case) because they would then be unable to charge the enormous fees that they currently do (far higher than similar Oxbridge courses, for example). Some might say that being prevented from fleecing one's student body is no bad thing! Badgerpatrol 12:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That still does not address why an article on one institution should cover a very contentious debate. The article on Private Universities is lacking in substance at the U.K section. The essence of the claims that were made would be that Private Universities are better. An additional issue is that the term independent is being used here in an incredibly limited scope - see above comment. It should be quite obvious that an institution that is privately funded is less financially controlled by government (however something that is generally not appreciated by the argument is that governments can through a series of laws effectively exercise a fair degree of control in any event) than a state funded institution. Paul Hjul 12:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the issue of private university education should be left to a different section. Simply because Buckingham is the UK's only private university does not mean it should be considered the forum for debate. The issue is simply an NPOV basis, and I believe it is fair to call Buckingham 'private' and the remainder 'state-funded'. If you look at UK2005 (produced by the Office of National Statistics) you will find that it says, under Higher Education:Finance 'The private University of Buckingham is the only independent university in the United Kingdom and does not receive public funds'. Therefore, 'independent' and 'private' are accepted usage according to the ONS. Cheers, Roche-Kerr 13:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of non-British/Commonwealth readers, I believe it is important to stress the different meanings of the term "public university" as used in English-speaking countries and elsewhere in the world. Unlike their counterparts in continental Europe or Latin America, British or Canadian universities are only "public" to the extent that most (though not all) of their funding comes from the state in terms of teaching or research grants. Otherwise, they are privately-managed, independent institutions meaning that: (1) they elect their own officials/administration normally without state interference; (2) they hire their own faculty and staff (who, unlike in France or Germany, are not career civil servants/governmment employees); (3) they own property and other (short and long-term) assets; (4) they define their own standards/criteria for the admission of students, again normally without state interference; (5) they independently set out the curricula for the different courses of studies they offer and specify the requirements that have to be fulfilled for awarding different academic degrees; and, finally, (6) they are free to charge tuition and other ancillary fees from matriculated students, although, unlike in my previous examples, that may be subject to government regulation in certain jurisdictions (in England for example, tuition fee levels are limited by law for undergraduate domestic students, though not for international (non-EU) or graduate students, who make up a considerable percentage nowadays of the student body). Furthermore, the fact that a few UK universities like Cambridge or Oxford actually have sizeable private endowments of their own (at least, by European standards) also helps to reduce their dependence on central government grants. 200.177.29.51 01:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on

.)

There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See

22:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You are bound to get universities taking an interest in their own web pages, so to some extent I think this is not likely to be something that can be uniformized. Nor, really, should it. As the discussions show, there isn't agreement about which rankings are the most significant or important. Some people clearly rate the National Student Survey very highly, as it is up-to-date year by year, and reflects the undergraduates' experience on the ground. Others want to place other indices higher. Let all indices appear, but some discretion should be used when indices obviously contradict each other. 'Famousdog' has high regard for Quacquarelli, but I'm not sure this is a very widely held view.

I don't think the above is a very balanced view. Quacquarelli isn't a particularly well thought of measure. The Guardian league tables based on 'student satisfaction' ratings, quality of student feedback, staff:student ratio, etc, etc. are better judged. For myself it doesn't make sense to see that Buckingham has departments in the top twenty UK universities and is somehow really low in Quacquarelli. I'd delete the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.244.171 (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if that's true*, then the sensible thing is to report all measures, which the article currently does. Problem solved.

*it isn't - the NSS is a rubbish, aggressive and intrusive piece of vox-pop polling that only considers what students think, whilst the QS/THES ratings look at a variety of factors: international reputation amongst academics and employers, research output, staff student ratio, citations per staff member and student satisfaction. Famousdog (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with two before: You can describe NSS in those terms if you don't believe the students themselves should have a say in things. When I vote in the upcoming euro elections, that's going to be 'vox-pop' as well. Long live dictatorships, hey ! The opinions of academics about each other's universities -- which is what Quacquarelli is, shouldn't be recorded. Student voice is really important, as the Guardian and others recognize. Moreover Guardian gives a good weighting to staff; student ratio, which is important to the basic student experience: do you actually get to interact/talk with your teachers. I agree with earlier contributor, who says wiki should use same measures for all universities. At the moment that's not easy. But the Guardian's measures of individual departments seem well thought through. Let's give them prominence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.111.83 (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Anonymous User, if you look carefully you will see that the NSS and the Guardian ratings already currently have prominence in the article over the QS/THES ratings (almost certainly because UoB is reflected in a positive light), so what's the problem? Secondly, I agree that all unis should be judged by the same standard - and lo and behold they are - one such measure is the QS/THES ratings! Thirdly, what students think is only one (very narrow) view of a uni. The QS/THES includes student satisfaction, so its not like its being ignored! (On that note: dictatorship? Sheesh. Get some perspective) Finally, the QS/THES ratings are international, allowing comparison of UK unis with other unis internationally, the Times, Guardian, NSS ratings are national. Why are local rankings being given prominance over global? Famousdog (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

i agree with the guy before, not famousdog. Why are you so undemocratic, famousdog. Wiki is a democratic thing, not top down. It's information for the people, the global people. The article should give more prominence to the National Student Survey, what students on the ground actually think about staff contact, how helpful the lectures are, when they get their essays marked and the detail of the feedback, whether they get good career advice etc. There is NO National Student survey for the whole world, but that's not reason to down play it. Is it famousdog who calls NSS 'albeit controversial'. Controversial for people at the top, not doubt, but for the ordinary potential student useful info. I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.62.136 (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Information for the people", eh? So you delete perfectly good, freely available "information" and call me "undemocratic." Said Mr Pot to Mr Kettle... Famousdog (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If you describe anything be it a cat, feeling, atom or a university you define its properties. You describe a cat by saying: it has four legs and whiskers, etc. You don't say: it is not an apple. Similarly, you should define Buckingham University according to what it is, not what it is not (or the list would be very long). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.224.36 (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The QS/THES ratings are widely considered the industry standard for judging the quality of a University. Buckingham's absence from the list is therefore of great relevance. We are not trying to say UoB is not an apple, or a bewildered pensioner, or a fault line, or ... Famousdog (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The crux here is that Buckingham keeps coming high up in the National Student Survey. It's a striking matter. There was an interesting debate in The Guardian recently about how much NSS results should be taken into account in ranking universities. The Guardian have decided to use the information, partly because it provides one of the few on-the-ground snap shots of what a university is really like at ground level. I think Wiki is right, then, to give prominence to these rankings. But it needs to do it systematically for other universities too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.131.131 (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

UoB's success on this measure can be explained quite simply. If you've paid or invested a lot in a particular product you are more likely to say that you are happy with your choice and satisfied with the service you recieved. Otherwise you suffer from cognitive dissonance. This also explains why people keep using alternative medicine, or smoking. Frankly, that totally undermines the value of the NSS in the case of private universities. Famousdog (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt you are right. The way you use 'private universities' is not in keeping with an informed view of governance issues across the UK university sector and the US university sector. Harvard and Yale are 'private universities' in the sense in which you use the term: would what you say apply to them also? It may be that, with the crush on state funding, quality is migrating, and Wiki should have a handle on this. NSS results are in fact pretty reliable. The rankings of other UK universities in NSS are ones which most lecturers at least would recognize.

Well, Anonymous User, firstly I'd thank you not to suggest (as you do) that I am uninformed. Secondly, I believe that my argument regarding cognitive dissonance would apply to Harvard and Yale, since it is about human psychology, not university governance. The rest of your argument about state funding and quality migration counts as

your opinion. What do you mean by "pretty reliable"? Show me the evidence that "most lecturers" would recognize NSS rankings over, say, the THES/QS scores? Can't? Shame. Famousdog (talk

) 13:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

'Facts' and 'values' (interpretations) cannot be separated. Even to cite 'a fact' presupposes a point of view (e.g. which fact have you selected? why have you prioritized it over other possible facts? and so forth). The argument between the contributors above hinges on this point. Surely some balanced view should be allowed to emerge. Clearly, with high ratings in NSS and Guardian tables, this is a highly regarded university. What worries me, in the previous, is particular individuals, with agendas, having a dominant impact on the page. NSS is a ranking system that has been gaining more and more credibility since its launch several years ago.

Well, Other Anonymous User (strange that everybody who objects to criticism of UoB on this page does it anonymously), high ratings in the NSS mean that UoB is "highly regarded" by its own students. A small and hardly representative sample. What about the opinions of employers, or other academics, or research output, or bibliometric ratings? Factors such as these are covered in the THES/QS rankings and yet people keep deleting that section of the article because it points out that UoB doesn't make the grade. The NSS rating is frankly being given

undue weight because it makes UoB look good. You want a "balanced view"? NSS ain't it, pal. Famousdog (talk

) 12:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

One commentator seems to be dominating this discussion. The issues of his expertise and credentials to comment on higher education naturally arises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.107.2 (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The above authority on higher education is so sure of his/her credentials that they have posted anonymously and the best argument that they can come up with is simply to smear my credentials. I have a PhD and work in HE, by the way. What the f*** do you do Anonymous User? Famousdog (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The frankness of the previous contribution is commendable, though the vulgarity of the language is not. I trust, working in one HE instiution, you are not simply at work attacking another HE institution. It would be good to be reassured about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.107.7 (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if your would stop implying that I am simply "attacking" UoB (another smear) and explain your "vulgar" attempt to call my credentials into question rather than putting your own unquestionable talents and credentials to work by improving the article? Famousdog (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting... I recently went to a university open day (university of Leicester) and they made great play of the student survey data. If they can, why can't Buckingham? I don't quite see your point here, famousdog? I've got no particular axe to grind about the university, but I know people who have gone there and found it really good. I think that student satisfaction (or student voice, as some of us call it) is a real rating that matters. Don't dismiss it too easily! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cunningartificer (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the discussion above is now out-of-date and should I think be removed. The university is consistently scoring highly in national league tables, and this pattern speaks for itself. So, for example, in the Guardian Department rankings, Business at Buckingham is 2nd in the UK, English 6th, and Law in the 20s. Obviously, one table doesn't give the whole picture, but a series of tables/gradings is reliable. The pattern suggests a very good university indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.62.21 (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy to

archive old discussions. Not delete them. Famousdog (talk

) 15:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Famousdog. Then I think it would be useful if ALL this discussion was archived, not only for Buckingham but for other universities. The situation facing all UK universities is very fluid, in view of the UK government's upcoming changes to fees, funding, access, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.62.137 (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it odd that the university is described as being "10 miles from Northamptonshire" - it is mostly odd because (a) you would normally describe somewhere as being x miles from a town/city - not from a county and (b) Northamptonshire is a different county to Buckinghamshire, whereas the major towns of Aylesbury and Milton Keynes are in the same county - I propose that it should be changed therefore to say that it is in North Buckinghamshire, 17 miles from Aylesbury and 15 miles from Milton Keynes. —The preceding

) 11:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

The above is out-of-date: the entry has been changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.111.83 (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any more information on the medical school? I thought that Brunel was going to create it's own one. I have read that the senate has approved it.

yes I applied for Clinical Medicine & receive Unconditional form. 2 years course is their. What to do ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.98.77.135 (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What should I do ? Go for it ?

See below. NRPanikker (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The University mentions a proposal to have a four-year MB BS course on their website, but they have no medical school as yet and have not announced when it is to start. Unlike other degrees, they would need approval from the General Medical Council to issue qualifying degrees in medicine. When Keele University started its medical school, it was initially supervised by the long-established medical school of the University of Manchester, and I believe the students originally received Manchester rather than Keele degrees. Buckingham might have to start off like that, in which case they would have to adjust to the practices of their mentor. I presume a four-year course would have to be graduate-entry, like the other shortened medical courses in the UK.

In autumn 2007 Buckingham announced plans to offer an "MD in Clinical Medicine" from summer 2008. This is to be a two year full-time course for 24 graduates with MB BS (or equivalent) plus internship. There is no entrance exam and no need for further experience. The other requirements are English language competence, Criminal Records Bureau clearance, two references and £16,000 a year (paid up front). After 2008 the next batch will start in 2010.

The website [2] implies that the course is intended for non-European Union graduates, who are no longer to be allowed to enter clinical training programmes in the UK. Students do not need to register with the General Medical Council. This implies that their experience will be similar to that of medical students. They will not get the clinical experience of house officers, residents or registrars.

The seven clinical modules are delivered by the "West London Postgraduate Medical School" at Ealing Hospital in London, but accommodation is said to be provided not only in London and Buckingham, but also in Chichester (in Sussex) and Newport (in South Wales), so it may be that the students will have clinical placements far away also.

Buckingham claims that their new MD has the same "quality assurance" from the QAA as the MD and PhD degrees of any other university: but that does not determine how it will be regarded by employers and training programmes overseas. It is clearly not like the modern British MD, which is a research degree with, usually, much less supervision than a PhD. Nor is it clear that it is like an Indian MD, if there is no clinical responsibility and no thesis. It seems to be more like the new "Professional Doctorates," but without the professional responsibility.

The MD would not help in getting medical registration in the UK, but the Buckingham website suggests that those MD students who pass the

while in the UK could go on to join local training programmes. However, to study for an exam in the whole of medicine (including surgery, obstetrics, public health, etc) at the same time as taking much more specialised exams at the end of each of eight ten-week modules in different aspects of internal medicine would not be practical. Also, such training may not be available to those who do not have both citizenship and a basic medical qualification from the European Union.

Those who do not attain the MD degree may be given a Diploma in Internal Medicine instead. Such diplomas have been available in London and Edinburgh for many years: the courses lasted a year or less, and were said to be useful for overseas doctors preparing for the

. However, clinical experience in training posts is required for Part Two of the MRCP exam, and without that only Part One of the exam may be taken. A two year course costing £32,000 may be overkill for that. On the other hand, two years spent in England on an MD course may be better than the same time trying to pass the PLAB.

There are many one and two-year MSc (etc) courses in medical subjects, often similarly targeted at foreign medical graduates, which because they are not often taken by local graduates have no defined place in British postgraduate training. To conclude: anyone thinking of enrolling for the University of Buckingham MD needs to get a lot more information than is available on their website. NRPanikker (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of assumptions here. It maybe a good idea to check out what you have written for example contacting the Univeristy. --Abdulha (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Abdulha

The discussion here seems very confused. Buckingham is simply 'independent' like the great American universities, like Yale and Harvard, in that it doesn't receive UK tax-payers'/government money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.131.131 (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

On editing 'is the only private university in the United Kingdom', 198.96.135.62 mentioned that 'other "private universities in England" are all foreign universities with no UK accreditation or standing'. If this is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it, this seems to indicate that there are other universities (geographically) in the United Kingdom, but that the University of Buckingham is the only private university in the United Kingdom with United Kingdom accreditation. It would be useful if there were a third party reference to clarify exactly what wording is necessary to describe the fact in the article. Coyets (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that BPP has been given degree awarding powers. Also there are a lot of university sector colleges in the private sector but not fully fledged universities. --Abdulha (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Abdulha

According to

) 07:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have enough time so I will be quick. Richmond is a university but it is not a university in statute like Buckingham. The College of Law and BPP have royal charters to award degrees in the UK. There are a lot of university sector colleges which award degree either external or they have a deal with the university to award the degree of that university.

The thing is complicated as the article should refer to higher education rather then universities as universities are only one part of higher education in the UK. For example we have Regents College. --Abdulha (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Abdulha

ALL UK universities are private, as is now clear from the changes the UK government is making and the freedom universities have in relation to these: i.e. how each university chooses to set its fees, whether £6,000 or more. Buckingham simply does not receive funding from HEFCE. Its income is endowment, fees, benefactors, etc. This is why the 'Ivy League' tag, which has been deleted, no doubt first got put up; because its funding regime is the same as the many famous universities in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.62.137 (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Early on the article mentions "prominent academics" at the university of Buckingham. Should this be a separate section, and with a bit more detail? Certainly some of the academics mentioned here are very "prominent" indeed : Roger Scruton's work in philosophy is really well known, and I suppose also the education work of Alan Smithers also: his education reports have a wide influence. Karol Scikora, the Dean of Medicine, is very "prominent", in The Guardian and so forth, a really distinguished doctor. But shouldn't the list be longer? where on the University's website can one go for more information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.111.83 (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The history of the above user is almost exclusively dedicated to adding promotional material about University of Buckingham and removing critical material, even if it is sourced. I cannot state for sure that the user is affiliated with the university, but he/she is definitely pushing for POV here.Jeppiz (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions the high ranking the university has achieved in the National Student Survey a number of times, first place in quite a few years (according to some measures) and second in the last recorded year. This is a national measure, which is impressive, and it relies on an indepedent IposMori survey, which is clearly good. But can anyone give more clarity on what this really means - and should this be added into the article. Does the survey cover all UK universities? Not everyone is an education specialist. In this, and other university articles I've visited, I think these measures need to be explained more. Any views? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.111.83 (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The history of the above user is almost exclusively dedicated to adding promotional material about University of Buckingham and removing critical material, even if it is sourced. I cannot state for sure that the user is affiliated with the university, but he/she is definitely pushing for POV here.Jeppiz (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the user has a fair point about the NSS. Lots of people aren't sure of what it includes or how its results are arrived at. The Guardian use it a lot, and I know it's influential on student choice--does it have its own entry? Haven't checked...

Dexter32 (— Dexter32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ), you claim that my edits regarding the homeopathy course offered and dropped (under intense media scrutiny) are inaccurate. Please explain how? Secondly, I disagree with your statement that discussion of Sikora's false claims regarding his connection with Imperial is irrelevant to this article, since the credentials and integrity of the dean of a "medical school" would be of interest to people considering applying there, but perhaps other editors could give us their opinion. Finally, I think discussion of the School's promotion of and connection with the alternative medicine community is extremely important when judging the quality of research and teaching on offer in what purports to be a school of medicine. Famousdog (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm just triple-checking my sources on the Homeopathy issue so will get back to you asap on that one. Sikora has his own entry on Wikipedia so surely the issue with Imperial should appear there. I appreciate that Sikora's reputation as Dean of the Medical School is relevant to Buckingham but I think a link to his entry in which all of his links, controversies etc. can be found would be a better way to relay this info.

I won't make any further changes until we've completed our discussions but one minor point, Andrew Wiles is in fact Andrew Miles. Not sure if you want to make that amend in the meantime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexter32 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC) — Dexter32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Have now checked all sources and can confirm the following: 1. 'The School has in the past been very supportive of alternative medicine, although it is attempting to sever its connection with this field of study.[9]' - The study of so-called Integrated (ive) Medicine was facilitated by the University on a trial basis in the form of a purely external collaboration with the Integrated Health Trust at Bath, UK. Academic and Managerial review of the Diploma in the Study of Integrated Medicine led to the decision to withdraw validation in September 2011, the time of cessation of study of the first (and only) cohort of students. I therefore don't think that 'very supportive' is an accurate description of Buckingham's link with alternative medicine and 'attempting to sever' is again inaccurate because the decision has been made to withdraw validation. 2. 'UoB offered a BSc(Hons) course in homeopathy which was later reduced to diploma status and then withdrawn completely.' - this statement is completely incorrect and untrue. Buckingham has never offered any degrees in homeopathy. 3. '... Drs Rosy Daniel and Mark Atkinson, who led Buckingham's homeopathy course.[9] Daniel has been criticised by medical campaigner David Colquhoun for breaches of the Cancer Act 1939, regarding claims she made for Carctol, a herbal remedy.[9]' - Rosy Daniel and Mark Atkinson are not and never have been members of university staff, their status has been one of external collaborator only. The inclusion of this info on the Buckingham entry is therefore not relevant.

I hope you'll agree that my revisions were relevant and accurate and that you won't object to me reinstating them (which I plan to do immediately). I think I covered the Karol Sikora issue in my earlier message and will ensure I include the info about Imperial on his own page and link to that from Buckingham's page. Dexter32 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC) — Dexter32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm sorry Dex, but frankly your user account appears to be a single-purpose account designed to remove inconvenient information from this page and I strongly suspect a conflict of interest in your editing of this page. My edits were sourced and I believe they were accurate, but I will let your edits stand until I can be bothered to go through them more carefully. Famousdog (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

My account my be being used for a single purpose but I can guarantee to you that I am only removing inaccurate and irrelevant information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexter32 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC) — Dexter32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That's fine, and I have corrected some inaccuracies in my edits. But wholesale blanking of content is not the way to go and I think it's important to identify you as having a potential conflict of interest in editing this page. Famousdog (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there really any similarity with the Ivy League institutions? Buckingham claims to have been formed "in the spirit of an American liberal arts college" [3], and so would seem more like the smaller and less prestigious US private institutions. It does not seem to be comparable to the Ivy League in research reputation, entry standards, endowments, age, or indeed any significant factor apart from being a private institution. Obviously, there are many private universities in the USA that are not in the Ivy League. It seems to me that the comparison to Ivy League institutions comes close to being a peacock term. ThomasL (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I should add that I mean "less prestigious" than the Ivy League, which is probably comparable only to Oxbridge in the UK. The latest edit replaced the "Ivy League" comparison without explanation, apart from stating that Warwick was only 40% state funded. Again, this doesn't seem to give any good reason for a comparison between Buckingham and the Ivy League, and it is equally true of US state universities. The most prestigious US state university is probably Berkeley, and the Berkeley website makes clear that "our 100 percent public University is currently only 25 percent funded by the State of California" [4] ThomasL (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by 'ivy league' as a descriptor. I see anyway this sentence has now been reedited. The point the original contributor was no doubt making was that the university scores very highly on a range of indices: staff: student ratio; graduate employment; National Student Survey; IT spend per head, etc. It is probably the first of these that has sometimes led to the 'Ivy League' tag.

From TFA intro para: "The University of Buckingham (UB) is an independent, non-sectarian, research and teaching university"

Why is "non-sectarian" considered noteworthy? I'm not convinced there are any sectarian universities in England. Is there a subtle meaning of "sectarian" to British academia beyond Christian infighting? Either I'm missing something (quite likely) or this isn't noteworthy and should be removed. (UB is also mixed sex, for example, but so is almost every other of the 200-odd universities in the UK so it isn't worth noting). Andrew Oakley (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wiki is international, and it should be remembered that many universities in the world have specific faith affiliations, not least in the US. The distinction then is between such non-affliated univerisites, and universities with specific faith affiliations (RC, Baptist, etc.). Its a useful term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.62.23 (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The University has recently been identified on Wikipedia as a "The University of Buckingham (UB) is the only for profit business college with the right to award degrees in the United Kingdom.~".

This is inaccurate - the University is not for-profit. It is a Registered Charity with Registered Charity status (number 1141691). See the University's website: http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/about/history.

An article in the Financial Times dated 13 April 2011 'For-profit university loan cap set to rise' says:

"The sector includes charitable, religious and profit-making institutions, notable the College of Law; for-profit BPP University College, owned by Apollo Group; Kaplan Open Learning, part of the Washington Post Company; and the University of Buckingham.

It is possible that this is where the confusion has arisen. The University of Buckingham is however not for profit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexter32 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

many thanks dexter. the original text said "only non-profit independent (private) ...", the following references might be helpful there:

• link to where uob is registered as charity
• link to a list of independent universities

beside this additional references, there are not working references as well, e.g. for the number of employees. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. I will attempt to create those links. UoB is a Registered Charity in the UK with the Charities Commission: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1141691&SubsidiaryNumber=0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexter32 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

the whole article seems to be not very well sourced, just to pick out a couple of examples: the employee number is different on the charity link (year 2012), and the annual report (2011). it is written that roger scruton is at UoB, and if you follow the link than it is revealed that he teaches at university of st. andrews. for O'Hear, sikora, a dead UoB link should proof they are there. alderman has no link at all. the times good university guide is mentioned but not linked, and old or new ranking numbers are cited whichever is more favourable. maybe i was just unlucky that 7 out of 10 links were wrong, not working, old, not there at all, linking own sources. and this in an article about a "teaching and research university"? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

We've always taken a very light touch on the Wikipedia entry (i.e. tried not to change things ourselves because of the conflict of interest issue unless they were factually incorrect). I agree that it does need to be looked at. I will try to look at the references etc. Is it OK to link to the University's website (you mention linking to own sources)? --Dexter32 (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"When the national Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) was created, the University felt it should join, even though - as Britain’s only independent University – it is markedly different from the state-funded universities that the QAA otherwise audits."

I do not think Wikipedia should take at face value its self-perception as "independent", a bit of a weasel word. POV needs removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.129.129.239 (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

On what is the statement "The university's funding regime is not like that of other UK universities, but rather is on the model of many US universities" based? That implies that this university is like a typical US (private?) university in its funding, which I don't believe is true: reputable private universities in the US receive large amounts of government funding through research funding,

) 17:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

New "energy institute"

Interesting reading here. I might get some time soon to write a section, but perhaps someone else will get to it before I do. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Users are trying to manipulate the article by removing new information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.168.187 (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy, material can only be included in an article if (a) it is

wp:reliable source

. Indeed it is equally valid (and indeed notable) to say that the University of Borsetshire is at the bottom of some league table. But where there is no data, we say nothing. The material I removed is not information, it was just noise.

For the record, let me state unequivocally that I have no connection past present or (in all probability) future with the University of Buckingham. It just happens to be within a 20 mile radius of where I live and has become connected with my local hospital --

talk

) 23:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120422061837/http://www.fih.org.uk/about_us/foundation_fellows.html to http://www.fih.org.uk/about_us/foundation_fellows.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

:Online 17:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Dexter32 14:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)I'd like to try to find out why information on the University's wikipedia page cannot be removed. I am a member of staff of the University so obviously do have a vested interest but the information is inaccurate and I do not see its relevance.

The two paras I’d like to remove (if possible) are:

Historically, the School had several associations with the alternative medicine community. The School ran a Diploma course in integrated medicine that was later withdrawn under pressure from David Colquhoun,[22] a campaigner against pseudoscience and alternative medicine. The Dean of the School, Karol Sikora, was a Foundation Fellow of Prince Charles's now-defunct alternative medicine lobby group, the Foundation for Integrated Health[23] and is Chair of the Faculty of Integrated Medicine, which is unaffiliated with any university but also includes Rosy Daniel and Mark Atkinson, who co-ordinated Buckingham's "integrated medicine" course.[22] Daniel has been criticised by David Colquhoun for breaches of the Cancer Act 1939, regarding claims she made for Carctol, a herbal dietary supplement with no utility in treating cancer.[22] Andrew Miles is on the scientific council of the College of Medicine[24] an alternative medicine lobby group linked to the Prince of Wales.[25] Sikora is also a "professional member" of this organisation.[26]

Professor of Theoretical Medicine at the school is Bruce Charlton, controversial editor of the journal Medical Hypotheses, who was dismissed as editor by publisher Elsevier[27][28] over the publication of a paper by AIDS denialists claiming that HIV is not responsible for AIDS[29] and concerns over the lack of peer-review at the journal.[30][31]

Bruce Charlton is not a member of staff at the University and hasn’t been for a number of years and the link with the Diploma in Integrated Medicine ended in 2010. Also, the School of Medicine didn’t exist during the period these associations existed so the information is inaccurate. The University's Medical School was only formed in 2014.

Please forgive any errors I've made in adding this to the Talk section. Thank you.

Dexter32 14:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexter32 (talk • contribs)

An anon editor corrected 'the only private university' (it isn't) but then inserted 'four chartered private universities' which afik is not true. If anyone knows of any other than Buckingham and the

) 19:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The anon editor has kindly added

talk

) 17:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The editor presumably got confused with

Regents College - a provider with degree awarding powers which does have a Royal Charter. Mike1901 (talk

) 19:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, found it - Regents College is now

talk

) 20:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Legacy Business School

@

talk

) 13:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

According to a more reliable source (the

talk

) 14:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree that 'a relationship that ended two years ago' can be regarded as 'not suitable for inclusion'. It shows very questionable judgement and should certainly go in. BUT it has to be written in neutral terms and be cited properly. --

talk

) 14:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

That's fair enough - I didn't word the summary very well on reflection! I removed it due to the fact that it's better not there at all on an interim basis rather than in the non-neutral form it was. I agree it should be in there in some form, and will have a go at drafting this later if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Mike1901 (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

But good to see that 84.112.219.188 went back to the Mail's source at the Daily Beast. The material at Kris Jenner and the Shady Crew Behind Her $105,000-a-Year Business School is good stuff and definitely citable, just not in an inflammatory way that won't be taken as seriously as it should. --

talk

) 14:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yup! Though caution should be urged as to the weight of it here, as it's 95% talking about an organisation run completely independently of the University, which only had a relatively small part to play. Mike1901 (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a new section on validation? It really does show questionable judgement - after all, validating means that an institution is putting its own reputation on the line so it had better be very sure that the validated organisation is bona fide and continues to be. Muck like this sticks and deservedly so. --

talk

) 15:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)